2010/2/7 Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com:
As between the two, I get the feeling that there is more interest in
writeable CTEs. But that impression might be wrong, since it's an
unscientific recollection of discussions on -hackers; which are
themselves not representative of anything.
Writeable
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
The documentation has definitely improved from the last time Robert
looked at it, but I fear it still needs some more work. I'm willing to
do that work, but I need something concrete.
It seems to me
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
The documentation has definitely improved from the last time Robert
looked at it, but I fear it still needs some more work. I'm
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Eh? Previously we allowed code to go in with documentation to be
written after feature freeze. Is this no longer acceptable?
I don't think we usually allow that for
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Eh? Previously we allowed code to go in with documentation to be
written after feature
On 2/8/10 7:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Eh? Previously we allowed code to go in with documentation to be
written after feature freeze. Is this no longer acceptable?
My $0.0201115:
Depends on the feature, I'd say. If it's sufficiently obvious to test
the feature without full documentation,
On Feb 8, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Eh? Previously we allowed code to go in with documentation to be
written after feature freeze. Is this no longer acceptable?
My $0.0201115:
I think you need to use a NUMERIC type there, as some calculation has lost
precision in the float.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
As between the two, I get the feeling that there is more interest in
writeable CTEs. But that impression might be wrong, since it's an
unscientific
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 2/8/10 7:31 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Eh? Previously we allowed code to go in with documentation to be
written after feature freeze. Is this no longer acceptable?
My $0.0201115:
Depends on the feature, I'd say. If it's sufficiently obvious to test
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 10:38:00PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Add on_trusted_init and on_untrusted_init to plperl
Package namespace and Safe init cleanup for plperl
Alex Hunsaker has marked the latest version of both of those
as Ready for Committer.
Tim.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Given that we have a week still to go in the CF, I feel fairly
confident of still getting the window frame patch in on time
(assuming that there are indeed no major problems with it).
I have not let go of it for that reason,
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I think it might be time to revisit this issue. SR is in, and we have
a week left in the CF, and we have all of the above patches plus 5
small ones left to deal with. rbtree is close to being committable, I
think; knngist
2010/2/7 Oleg Bartunov o...@sai.msu.su:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I think it might be time to revisit this issue. SR is in, and we have
a week left in the CF, and we have all of the above patches plus 5
small
Robert,
As between the two, I get the feeling that there is more interest in
writeable CTEs. But that impression might be wrong, since it's an
unscientific recollection of discussions on -hackers; which are
themselves not representative of anything.
Writeable CTE is definitely the bigger
On 2010-02-07 22:37 +0200, Josh Berkus wrote:
Robert,
I have not looked at the window functions patch at all, and I haven't
looked at the latest version of writeable CTEs, either. I will try to
spend some time on it in the next couple of days. My feeling about
the last version is that it
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
The documentation has definitely improved from the last time Robert
looked at it, but I fear it still needs some more work. I'm willing to
do that work, but I need something concrete.
It seems to me documentation is required to get into the
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi writes:
The documentation has definitely improved from the last time Robert
looked at it, but I fear it still needs some more work. I'm willing to
do that work, but I
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com
wrote:
In case I'm not clear, what I'm saying is that I think we can consider
the writable CTE patch ready for commit even though we still have to
decide what its impacts on
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I think it might be time to revisit this issue. SR is in, and we have
a week left in the CF, and we have all of the above patches plus 5
small ones left to deal with. rbtree is close
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com
wrote:
In case I'm not clear, what I'm saying is that I think we can consider
the writable CTE
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
As between the two, I get the feeling that there is more interest in
writeable CTEs. But that impression might be wrong, since it's an
unscientific recollection of discussions on -hackers; which are
themselves not
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
OK, we have a proposal on the table to bump some patches from this
CommitFest to free up more committer resources, particularly Tom, to
work on Hot Standby and Streaming Replication
Robert,
I think it might be time to revisit this issue. SR is in, and we have
a week left in the CF, and we have all of the above patches plus 5
small ones left to deal with. rbtree is close to being committable, I
think; knngist has not been reviewed yet; you (Tom) have claimed the
frame
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
... The affected patches are:
- Listen/Notify Rewrite.
- Writeable CTEs.
- more frame options for window functions
- knngist
- rbtree
I think it might be time to revisit this issue. SR is in, and we have
a week left in the CF, and we have all of
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 09:19:44PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I have not yet given up hope on April 1, but I wouldn't bet on it,
either.
Let's *not* schedule anything for April 1. There's some history, not
to mention an internet-wide holiday, there.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I agree. My main concern in terms of dealing with these outstanding
is that it will distract us, particularly Tom, from stabilizing the
tree, especially HS, VF, and SR. If the tree were in a releasable
state today I wouldn't be worrying about it.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I agree. My main concern in terms of dealing with these outstanding
is that it will distract us, particularly Tom, from stabilizing the
tree, especially HS, VF, and SR.
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 12:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I agree. My main concern in terms of dealing with these outstanding
is that it will distract us, particularly
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I agree. ?My main concern in terms of dealing with these outstanding
is that it will distract us, particularly Tom, from stabilizing the
tree,
Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 12:52 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I think I was pretty clear about what I was proposing in the
message with which I started this thread - bump some or all the
big, outstanding patches to leave more time for stabilizing the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
You sound like you want to drop the last Commit Fest and prepare beta
instead.
I think I was pretty clear about what I was proposing in the message
with which I started
Josh Berkus wrote:
I'll also say: if we can't make time-based releases work, we're probably
dead as a project. MySQL and Ingres both tried feature-based releases,
and look where they are now.
That is a simplification. We have always done time-based releases with
adjustments for
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 19:50 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
I'll also say: if we can't make time-based releases work, we're probably
dead as a project. MySQL and Ingres both tried feature-based releases,
and look where they are now.
That is a simplification. We have
Robert Treat wrote:
Now the other approach we could take is that we'll ship *something*
on 7 Mar, even if it's less stable than what we've traditionally
considered to be beta quality. I don't think that really helps
much though; it just means we need more time in beta.
There are
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
Robert Treat wrote:
There are three reasons I'd probably be comfortable with that; 1) the CF
process means we've likely had more eyes on the code going in than in past
releases.
The reality check is that was had commit-fests for 8.4 development and
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 07:50:23PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
I'll also say: if we can't make time-based releases work, we're
probably dead as a project. MySQL and Ingres both tried
feature-based releases, and look where they are now.
That is a simplification. We
They weren't easily identified, or we'd have found them before 8.4.0
release. I think the notion that 8.4.0 was much worse than previous .0
releases is largely bogus, anyway; we've just forgotten all the bugs in
older releases ...
It was worse than some, and better than others.
Bruce's
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:14 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 07:50:23PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
I'll also say: if we can't make time-based releases work, we're
probably dead as a project. MySQL and Ingres both tried
feature-based
Robert Haas wrote:
The consensus view on this thread seems to be that we should have a
time-based code freeze, but not a time-based release. No one has
argued (and I sincerely hope no one will argue) that we should let the
last CommitFest drag on and on, as we did for 8.4. However, many
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
The consensus view on this thread seems to be that we should have a
time-based code freeze, but not a time-based release. No one has
argued (and I sincerely hope no one will argue) that we should let the
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
The consensus view on this thread seems to be that we should have a
time-based code freeze, but not a time-based release. ?No one has
argued (and I sincerely hope no one will
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
We could if we could all stop long enough to address them. I think
there is the feeling that a great idea will pop up eventually, and only
when we are looking at beta do we realize we are out of time, and the
hard,
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
We could if we could all stop long enough to address them. ?I think
there is the feeling that a great idea will pop up eventually, and only
when we are looking at beta do we realize we are out of time,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think the big issue with 8.4 was, do we close the commit-fest when we
have open issues, and we aren't clear on how to fix them? A lot of
unresolve issues get kept for that pre-beta period because all of a
sudden we have to resolve all those complex problems. I don't see
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Personally, I'd like the topic of a thread on damage control to be all
about testing the one big patch that's already in there (HS), its related
bits like the VACUUM FULL changes, and potentially SR too. Those are things
The consensus view on this thread seems to be that we should have a
time-based code freeze, but not a time-based release. No one has
argued (and I sincerely hope no one will argue) that we should let the
last CommitFest drag on and on, as we did for 8.4. However, many
people are still eager
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 05:54, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Peter,
Just to clarify: I am for sticking to the agreed dates. If some things
are not ready by the necessary date plus/minus one, they won't make the
release. If it's obvious earlier that something won't make the date, it
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 07:38, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Treat xzi...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
... I don't see much sense in worrying about it now; the 2 weeks between end
of CF and Beta are when we need to be cut-throat. Given that this time the
must-have feature is
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 08:09, Robert Treat
xzi...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On Sunday 10 January 2010 01:38:07 Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat xzi...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
... I don't see much sense in worrying about it now; the 2 weeks between
end of CF and Beta are when we need to
On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 08:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
it seems much better to me to have the rule than not
I think we can overplay the need for lots of rules here and the need to
chase up status every 5 minutes.
The first problem, in previous years, was patches spent too long on the
patch
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Robert Treat
xzi...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
But really if beta slips because we don't like the looks of our open issues
list, thats signicantly better than the last couple releases where we held
everything up just to get things into CVS months after feature
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
But really if beta slips because we don't like the looks of our open issues
list, thats signicantly better than the last couple releases where we held
everything up just to get things into CVS months after feature
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 05:54, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Peter,
Just to clarify: I am for sticking to the agreed dates. If some things
are not ready by the necessary date plus/minus one, they won't make
Josh Berkus wrote:
I'll also say: if we can't make time-based releases work, we're probably
dead as a project. MySQL and Ingres both tried feature-based releases,
and look where they are now.
I think you're engaging in a bit of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'
reasoning here.
In any
On sön, 2010-01-10 at 01:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Now the other approach we could take is that we'll ship *something*
on 7 Mar, even if it's less stable than what we've traditionally
considered to be beta quality. I don't think that really helps
much though; it just means we need more time
Now the other approach we could take is that we'll ship *something*
on 7 Mar, even if it's less stable than what we've traditionally
considered to be beta quality. I don't think that really helps
much though; it just means we need more time in beta.
Well, we're shipping an alpha, aren't we?
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Now the other approach we could take is that we'll ship *something*
on 7 Mar, even if it's less stable than what we've traditionally
considered to be beta quality. I don't think that really helps
much though; it just means
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I have always
felt that the purpose of a CommitFest was to give everyone a fair
shake at getting their patch reviewed, provided that they followed
certain ground rules.
Yes, like for example submitting the patch before the commit fest
begins.
And
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I have always
felt that the purpose of a CommitFest was to give everyone a fair
shake at getting their patch reviewed, provided that they followed
certain ground rules.
On fre, 2010-01-08 at 21:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
The commitfest is a tool for people to track what is going on, not a
tool to tell people what to do.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you please elaborate?
The proposal was apparently that a small, vocal group gets to
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Basically, here's my feeling. Either we have a rule that we can
bounce large, previously-unseen patches from the final CommitFest of
the release cycle, or we don't. If we do, then we should go ahead and
do it, and we should do it early when it will
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On fre, 2010-01-08 at 21:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
The commitfest is a tool for people to track what is going on, not a
tool to tell people what to do.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you please
On lör, 2010-01-09 at 14:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
If we accept large patches at the very end of the development cycle,
that's when people will submit them. You've previously criticized the
high proportion of the release cycle that is set aside for CommitFest
and beta, so I'm surprised to
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On lör, 2010-01-09 at 14:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
If we accept large patches at the very end of the development cycle,
that's when people will submit them. You've previously criticized the
high proportion of the
Peter,
Just to clarify: I am for sticking to the agreed dates. If some things
are not ready by the necessary date plus/minus one, they won't make the
release. If it's obvious earlier that something won't make the date, it
shouldn't be committed, and maybe put on the backburner right now.
On Saturday 09 January 2010 16:32:29 Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On lör, 2010-01-09 at 14:12 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
If we accept large patches at the very end of the development cycle,
that's when people will submit them.
Robert Treat xzi...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
... I don't see much sense in worrying about it now; the 2 weeks between end
of CF and Beta are when we need to be cut-throat. Given that this time the
must-have feature is already in the tree, I think you will find people
coming
around
On Sunday 10 January 2010 01:38:07 Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Treat xzi...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
... I don't see much sense in worrying about it now; the 2 weeks between
end of CF and Beta are when we need to be cut-throat. Given that this
time the must-have feature is already in the
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
If we *must* have SR and it's not in by the 15th, let's do another
Commitfest rather than jack the people who played by the rules.
If we do add another Commitfest what we do is exactly jacking people who
played by the rules. Because all those patches that
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:02, Dimitri Fontaine dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
If we *must* have SR and it's not in by the 15th, let's do another
Commitfest rather than jack the people who played by the rules.
If we do add another Commitfest what we do is
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Why we can do it this way is because we're not starving on
reviewers. We're starving on commiters time. And seeing this:
Well, we're actually somewhat starving on senior reviewers as well.
That can take on things like the index patches, Writable CTE
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
This strikes me as quite premature. Heiki just said he expects to have SR
committed next week.
Getting it committed is not what I'm worried about. What I'm
concerned about is Tom's statement that
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
here is the ideal schedule:
Jan 15 start commitfest
Feb 15 stop commitfest
Apr 1 start beta
Jun 1 release release candidate (RC)
Jun 20 release 8.5
Of course we rarely have an ideal schedule
So for a project which
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Jan 15 start commitfest
Jun 20 release 8.5
over six months
OK, so over *five* months. Still
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
* Kevin Grittner (kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov) wrote:
It also seems to call into question the wisdom of annual releases.
If we had a two-year cycle which had three times as much in it,
would that be an improvement, or not?
At the moment, my vote would be how 'bout we discuss this post-8.5?.
On Jan 8, 2010, at 1:02 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Now, I'll second Greg Smith and Tom here, in that I think we need to run
the last commitfest as usual, knowing that the outcome of the commitfest
for any given patch is not it made it but we reviewed it. It's still
right for the project to
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
This strikes me as quite premature. Heiki just said he expects to have SR
committed next week.
Getting it committed is not
Robert Haas wrote:
You can't move from commitfest to beta until all _known_ bugs are
fixed/addressed, and you can't move from beta to RC using the same
criteria.
Hmm. For 8.4, I don't think we actually fixed all known bugs - I
think we made a decision about which ones had to be fixed
On Friday 08 January 2010 19:07:16 Bruce Momjian wrote:
I think so, too, but I'm actually afraid that if we don't start making
some tough decisions soon it's going to be even later than that. I'm
dismayed by the number of people who seem to think that the current
schedule is not already
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
You can't move from commitfest to beta until all _known_ bugs are
fixed/addressed, and you can't move from beta to RC using the same
criteria.
Hmm. For 8.4, I don't think we actually fixed all known
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
You can't move from commitfest to beta until all _known_ bugs are
fixed/addressed, and you can't move from beta to RC using the same
criteria.
Hmm. ?For 8.4, I don't think we
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
You can't move from commitfest to beta until all _known_ bugs are
fixed/addressed, and you can't move from
Robert Haas wrote:
We discussed doing this at the very beginning of 8.4 release cycle
and, the more I think about it, the more I think it's not fair not to
go ahead and do it. ?Otherwise, we're rewarding people for ignoring a
guideline that was discussed, and punishing (1) the people who
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
We discussed doing this at the very beginning of 8.4 release cycle
and, the more I think about it, the more I think it's not fair not to
go ahead and do it. ?Otherwise, we're rewarding people for
Jeff,
Aside: I'll take this alarm as a very strong hint that I shouldn't push
the range types any more until the next development cycle.
Particularly because Tom is one of the people with opinions about it, so
I don't want to distract him from features submitted several commitfests
ago.
Presuming enough reviewers (which should be the case this time given the
expectation that submitters also review), the suggested pacing here now
has every patch passing through a round of review and potentially one
update within ten days.
If we *don't* have enough reviewers, though, I
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
We discussed doing this at the very beginning of 8.4 release cycle
and, the more I think about it, the more I think it's not fair not to
go ahead and do it. ?Otherwise, we're
On fre, 2010-01-08 at 10:02 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Now, I'll second Greg Smith and Tom here, in that I think we need to
run
the last commitfest as usual, knowing that the outcome of the
commitfest
for any given patch is not it made it but we reviewed it. It's
still
right for the
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On fre, 2010-01-08 at 10:02 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Now, I'll second Greg Smith and Tom here, in that I think we need to
run
the last commitfest as usual, knowing that the outcome of the
commitfest
for any given
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I am tempted to say we should clamp down and go into damage control
mode
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 08:57:15PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I am
Robert Haas wrote:
OK, we have a proposal on the table to bump some patches from this
CommitFest to free up more committer resources, particularly Tom, to
work on Hot Standby and Streaming Replication and attempt to
accelerate the process of getting 8.5 out the door. This proposal
needs
* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
OK, we have a proposal on the table to bump some patches from this
CommitFest to free up more committer resources, particularly Tom, to
work on Hot Standby and Streaming Replication and attempt to
accelerate the process of getting 8.5 out the door.
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
- Listen/Notify Rewrite.
- Writeable CTEs.
...
Votes?
I'm not qualified to vote on how other people spend their time, but here
are my thoughts:
SR was submitted quite some time ago, so I don't see it as breaking the
rules to put it first
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
This strikes me as quite premature. Heiki just said he expects to have SR
committed next week.
Getting it committed is not what I'm worried about. What I'm
concerned about is Tom's statement that he believes that HS is
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
OK, we have a proposal on the table to bump some patches from this
CommitFest to free up more committer resources, particularly Tom, to
work on Hot Standby and Streaming Replication and attempt to
accelerate the process of getting 8.5 out the door.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
OK, we have a proposal on the table to bump some patches from this
CommitFest to free up more committer resources, particularly Tom, to
work on Hot Standby and Streaming Replication
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Looking at this list again, it strikes me that the listen/notify rewrite
might need to go in so that we have a sane framework for listen/notify
with HS.
It's also related to this
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fair enough ;-). But I don't feel a need to make a decision now,
either. We can at least wait a week and see if Heikki gets SR
committed.
OK.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
Robert Haas wrote:
If we're going to have any chance of getting
these patches in, we have to give the patch authors good feedback
early in the CommitFest so that they have time to make the necessary
revisions before the end of the CommitFest. If we think we can swing
it, I'm happy to handle
100 matches
Mail list logo
